Hays v. California Highway Patrol et al

Filing 8

ORDER denying 5 Report and Recommendations; ORDER REFERRING CASE to Honorable James R. Marschewski for consideration of Plaintiff's Addendum filed 8/11/09. Signed by Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren on September 9, 2009. (src)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION STEVEN J. HAYS v. Civil No. 09-5121 PLAINTIFF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL and THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ORDER Now on this 9th day of September, 2009, DEFENDANTS comes on for consideration the Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge (document #5), and plaintiff's Objection thereto (document #6), and the Court, having carefully reviewed said Report And Recommendation, finds and orders as follows: 1. Plaintiff's claims allege misconduct on the part of the California Highway Patrol. Because it appeared from his Complaint that venue might be proper in a United States District Court for California, rather than this district, on June 23, 2009, the Magistrate Judge sent plaintiff an Addendum to gather more information about his claim. the Addendum by July 16, 2009. 2. Plaintiff was instructed to return When plaintiff failed to return the Addendum, on July 27, 2009, the Magistrate Judge recommended that his Complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court order. Plaintiff then filed an Objection stating that if the case were dismissed, it would "mean[] that this U.S. DISTRICT COURT is refusing to do it's [sic] job." (Capitalization in original.) 3. Plaintiff's Objection is clearly without merit. However, another consideration obtains. Although plaintiff's Objection offers no explanation for why he failed to return the Addendum in a timely fashion, the Clerk of Court informs the Court that plaintiff did call with an address correction, and the Court considers that plaintiff's mail may have been delayed. The Court finds, therefore, that this matter should be remanded to the Magistrate Judge to consider the belated Addendum. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report And Recommendation Of The Magistrate Judge (document #5) is not adopted, and this matter is remanded to the Magistrate Judge for consideration of the Addendum filed by plaintiff on August 11, 2009. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren JIMM LARRY HENDREN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?